[ad_1]
In a 2018 announcement similar to the one Ben & Jerry’s made this week, Airbnb said it would no longer offer housing in Israeli settlements.
Airbnb insisted it was not boycotting Israel and opposed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which does not distinguish between Israel proper and the West Bank, as Airbnb seeks to do. But that wasn’t enough to prevent the vacation rental giant from being inundated with lawsuits from plaintiffs in the United States who alleged discriminatory practices.
In a legal settlement concluded less than five months after its announcement of the shutdown of the press, Airbnb decided to reverse the decision to remove registrations in the colonies.
With its announcement on Monday that it would stop selling its ice cream in the “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, Ben & Jerry’s ostensibly aims to advance the anti-settlement cause further than Airbnb has been able to.
But the ice cream giant is expected to face similar legal challenges from pro-Israel activists and lawmakers in the United States who do not accept efforts to differentiate between Israel and the West Bank in matters. of boycott. They argue that refusing to sell a pint to Efrat is no different from refusing to sell one in Tel Aviv.
Israel wasted no time, with its Ambassador to the United States, Gilad Erdan, writing letters to each of the governors of the more than 30 states that have passed BDS legislation, urging them to act against Ben & Jerry’s in accordance to these laws.
In coordination with @yairlapid, I sent a letter to 35 governors of states in the United States who have legislation against the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. 1/2 pic.twitter.com/tGW720oRZL
– Ambassador Gilad Erdan Gilad Erdan (@ giladerdan1) July 20, 2021
This legislation includes requirements for states to withdraw their pension fund investments from companies boycotting Israel and to strip those companies of any contracts signed with said states.
Richard Goldberg, who drafted one of the first anti-BDS laws while working for former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner in 2015, said that in addition to the discrimination lawsuits, Airbnb’s decision to reverse its boycott of the settlements followed advice from states such as Illinois and Florida. and New Jersey that they planned to withdraw their pension funds following the announcement.
“These states took action and caught Airbnb’s attention very quickly, in part because they were eagerly awaiting an IPO, and the state’s pension divestment actions would likely have been tough enough for them to do. them in this environment, ”Goldberg told The Times of Israel.
According to investment data from Bloomberg, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Arizona, Illinois and Mississippi all have pension funds currently invested in Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s. These are also six of the 12 states that have passed a law requiring them to divest their pension funds from companies that participate in the boycott of Israel.
“In this case, you have a decision by a large corporation to inflict economic harm on an Israel-based company for political motives, which is not just a manual definition of BDS, but a legal definition in under the criteria of state laws against this. “said Goldberg, who is now a senior advisor to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He was referring to the Ben and Jerry’s factory in Israel, which lost its contract to produce the ice cream due to the decision of the ‘business.
Lara Friedman, who follows anti-BDS legislation as chair of the Middle East Peace Foundation, said she expects states to act quickly.
New York State must follow its own decree, lead by example, and disassociate itself entirely from Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s for their anti-Israel and anti-Jewish discrimination. Read my full statement⬇️ pic.twitter.com/VbcMbegTez
– Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) July 20, 2021
“For lawmakers trying to make a truly political statement, I don’t see them saying, ‘Well, let’s wait and see,'” she said, adding that opponents of the settlement boycott would likely “be digging in. books in states that have these laws to see if they can take punitive action.
Targeting pension investments appears to be a safer way to get revenge on Ben & Jerry’s than to blacklist the company from contracts with states.
Following a series of challenges to the First Amendment laws, many states are now setting a minimum amount of $ 100,000 in commerce before anti-BDS measures can be triggered against a contractor. This would mean that Ben & Jerry’s small contracts would not be affected, even in states with anti-BDS laws. But Friedman and Goldberg still said future contracts with Ben & Jerry’s could be in jeopardy.
The third avenue of punishment Ben & Jerry’s will likely face is reputation damage. Foreign Minister Yair Lapid set the tone for the attack, claiming that the ice cream company “has given in to anti-Semitism”.
The settlement of Beitar Illit in the West Bank, with the Palestinian village of Wadi Fukin in the valley below, June 17, 2015 (Nati Shohat / Flash90)
“Trying to slander these companies as anti-Semitic nationally and internationally is no small feat,” Friedman said. “The question is how long will companies and shareholders be prepared to hold the line against this.
“The people who oppose it will do everything to push Ben & Jerry’s to reverse the position like Airbnb did or to punish them so harshly that no one else will dare to go,” he said. she adds.
Goldberg noted Ben & Jerry’s effort to differentiate between its West Bank ban and its willingness to continue selling its products in Israel, in an apparent effort to avoid legal repercussions.
“Differentiation is a comfortable place for those who want to say that it is about the settlements and not the State of Israel, which takes away the fact that the West Bank settlement policy is a State policy of Israel. ‘Israel,’ Friedman said.
Goldberg noted that state anti-BDS legislation makes no distinction between the West Bank and Israel proper, “because at the end of the day you are punishing an Israeli company and not a company that operates only in the West Bank.”
The laws appear to have been drafted with the intention of including the settlement boycott within the larger framework frame boycotts of Israel. In Illinois anti-BDS law, for example, boycotts of Israel are defined as “engaging in actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize, inflict economic harm, or limit harm. another way commercial relations with the State of Israel or companies based in the State of Israel or in territories controlled by the State of Israel.
More than targeting boycotters of Israel proper, Friedman maintained that anti-BDS legislation is designed to target relatively more moderate companies that urge targeted boycotts of the settlement enterprise. She referred to a recent blacklist compiled as a result of New York’s anti-BDS legislation, where the majority of the companies listed were those that engaged in settlement boycotts and added that no major company is. has pursued a boycott of both Israel and the settlements over the past decade. .
JTA contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Source link